Parents refusing blood transfusions for their children solely on religious grounds: Who must apply for the court order?

IF 1.2
D J McQuoid-Mason
{"title":"Parents refusing blood transfusions for their children solely on religious grounds: Who must apply for the court order?","authors":"D J McQuoid-Mason","doi":"10.7196/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i2.14486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The South African Constitution provides that children have the right to healthcare, as well as all other rights. Furthermore, in all matters affecting them, their best interests must be 'of paramount importance'. It seems common practice that, when parents refuse blood transfusions for their children solely on religious grounds, doctors and health authorities apply for a court order to overturn such refusals. However, since the implementation of the Children's Act of 2005, it may be that the onus is no longer on doctors and authorities to apply to court to reverse the decision of parents and guardians. It can be argued instead that the burden has shifted to the parents to apply to court for an order to overrule the decision of doctors, by proving to the court that alternative choices are available. Guidance is given for situations, particularly in the public sector, where alternative choices are not available.</p>","PeriodicalId":520778,"journal":{"name":"South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde","volume":" ","pages":"100-101"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7196/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i2.14486","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i2.14486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The South African Constitution provides that children have the right to healthcare, as well as all other rights. Furthermore, in all matters affecting them, their best interests must be 'of paramount importance'. It seems common practice that, when parents refuse blood transfusions for their children solely on religious grounds, doctors and health authorities apply for a court order to overturn such refusals. However, since the implementation of the Children's Act of 2005, it may be that the onus is no longer on doctors and authorities to apply to court to reverse the decision of parents and guardians. It can be argued instead that the burden has shifted to the parents to apply to court for an order to overrule the decision of doctors, by proving to the court that alternative choices are available. Guidance is given for situations, particularly in the public sector, where alternative choices are not available.

仅以宗教理由拒绝为孩子输血的父母:谁必须申请法院命令?
《南非宪法》规定,儿童享有保健权以及所有其他权利。此外,在所有影响他们的事务中,他们的最大利益必须是“至关重要的”。当父母仅仅因为宗教原因拒绝为孩子输血时,医生和卫生当局就会申请法院命令推翻这种拒绝,这似乎是一种常见的做法。然而,自从2005年《儿童法案》实施以来,医生和当局可能不再有责任向法院申请推翻父母和监护人的决定。相反,可以辩称,责任已经转移到父母身上,通过向法院证明有其他选择,向法院申请命令推翻医生的决定。在没有其他选择的情况下,特别是在公共部门,提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信